Mercutio Magazine #002 (Part 2)

Dancing with God: The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage in America

M

uch of the debate over gay rights revolves around the question of choice. If it is a choice, then homosexuals do not deserve rights; behavior is not protected under the Constitution. However, if sexuality is a part of our biological identity, like race or gender, then homosexuals deserve the same protection under the law as other groups.

Calling homosexuality a behavior comes with a presumption that all homosexuality is about is the act of fornication, negating the element of love.

If this were the case, homosexuals would not be fighting

Jonathon Saia for marriage, an institution of affection. As to the element of choice, from personal experience, being gay is far from a choice. Moreover, if one’s sexuality were a decision, then heterosexuality must also be included in this argument.

Clearly, some of this logic has seeped into the collective consciousness; the term “sexual preference” has morphed into “sexual orientation,” connoting an inherent biological factor.

The “choice,” whichever end of the Kinsey scale you find yourself, is accepting it.

The quest for gay rights has been a long and slowly evolving one in America. Jamestown saw the first prosecution

of alleged homosexual acts when Richard Cornish was charged with the rape of a male indentured servant in 1624, a claim that was later rebuked by the victim’s own brother. In 1636, sodomy – the “unnatural” sexual acts of oral and anal sex, derived from the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible – was made a crime punishable by death in the Plymouth Colony. In 1641, the Massachusetts’ Body of Liberties used the Letivical law pertaining to homosexuality as grounds for capital punishment. Even our beloved Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1778 in his Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments that “whoever shall be guilty of

Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”

As the nation grew, sodomy laws spread throughout the states and remained a nationwide felony until 1962. Ironically, it was Midwestern state Illinois, not the liberally minded New England states one would expect, that adopted the first modernization of the law by removing consensual sodomy from criminalization. Other states were slow to follow until the official beginning of the Gay Rights Movement in 1969 with the Stonewall Uprising.

Prior to Stonewall, there had been fringe groups like The Society for Human Rights (founded in 1924, again in Illinois) that sought “to promote

and protect the interests of people...abused and hindered in the legal pursuit of happiness...guaranteed them by the Declaration of Independence...” and The Mattachine Society, created during the Communist Era with the goals to “unify homosexuals...educate homosexuals and heterosexuals toward an ethical homosexual culture...lead the more socially conscious homosexual to provide leadership... and assist gays who are victimized.” These organizations grew from a need to portray homosexuals as people, not social deviants who were worthy of the lobotomies and institutionalization they endured for the first half of the 20th century. Homosexuality had to be kept a secret to avoid these punishments, unfortunately looked upon as “cures.” two places of solace for gay men were the bar and the bathhouse. Here they could

experiment and enjoy the company and caresses of one another without the damning eyes of an oppressive society.

Unfortunately, bars were frequently raided by the Public Morals Squad, a division of the police department used to uphold “morality.” (The irony is that these arbiters of morality were paid off by the Mafia, the owners of bars like the Stonewall, not to shut down the establishment or do too much damage) This forced its patrons to disperse to even more out of the way and secret places – like the backs of trucks used for hauling meat and warehouses – or face arrest. All this changed on June 28, 1969.

The Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City, was a sanctuary for the most dejected of homosexuals, including runaway youth and drag queens; people

that no one had expected to fight back. But fight back they did.

Michael Fader, a witness to the riots, recants their motives in the book Stonewall: “We all had a collective feeling like we'd had enough of this kind of shit. It wasn't anything tangible anybody said to anyone else, it was just kind of like everything over the years had come to a head on that one particular night in the one particular place, and it was not an organized demonstration....

Everyone in the crowd felt that we were never going to go back. It was like the last straw.

It was time to reclaim something that had always been taken from us....”

The riots lasted for three evenings and attracted hundreds of nearby onlookers, gleaning much media attention.

They fueled a need from the gay community to take action and stand up for their rights.

A new organization, the Gay Liberation Front, was founded to spread the word from the rooftops that “we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.” If the Mattachine Society was Martin Luther King, GLF was Malcolm X. GLF coordinated the first Gay Pride Parade on June 28, 1970 to commemorate the first anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.

This has become an annual event throughout the United States, including a parade, festivities, and political activism to keep the banner high.

Henceforth, sodomy laws began to trickle off the books.

The ‘70s saw 20 states (CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IN, IA, MN, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, OH, OR, SD, VT, WA, WV, AND WY) join Illinois while the ‘80s added AK and WI. GA, KY, MD, MT, NV, PA, RI, TN, and Washington, D.C. followed suit in the ‘90s with AR, AZ, MA, MN, and NY changing their laws before the landmark Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned the sodomy laws against homosexuals in the remaining 14 states (AL, FL, ID, KS, LA, MI, MS, MO, NC, OK, SC, TX, UT, and VA). The case ruled that private actions between consenting citizens could not be outlawed under the Constitution. (Strangely enough, AR, KS, KY, MO, MN, TN, and TX still consider anal sex between unmarried heterosexual people illegal while AL, AZ, KS, KY, MO, MN, NY, NC, TN, and TX extend this ruling to married heterosexuals. AR, SC, and MI even outlaw oral sex) Congressman and potential GOP candidate Ron Paul stated in the first Republican debate that there shouldn’t be rights specifically benefiting one group of people, whether they be gay, black, or female; there should just be rights. Unfortunately, this is a pipedream.

This would require all parties to accept others, regardless of how they may differ from themselves, as their equal. Despite almost 250 years of history, America, for all of its evolution and comparative progressiveness, is still a country divided over race, religion, how to raise our children, and what it means to live the American Dream.

And as American citizens, we have this individual right not

to support or endorse people or lifestyles we disapprove of, but as a governing body, if our Constitution is worth its parchment, we do not. Basic rights, such as the ability to visit one’s partner in the hospital (which Obama finally extended to us in April of 2010) or take care of our loved ones by covering them on our insurance should not – and cannot be infringed upon by outside parties who constitutionally don’t have the right to do so; the pursuit of happiness does not come with a qualifier. Hence the need for gay rights. I wish gay laws and rights could be decided upon by homosexuals, but that is not how our system works. If we are honest with ourselves, many of our laws are not made by people at all.

Throughout history, God has been used as the justification for innumerable crimes, policies, and mandates from the Crusades to 9/11. Thankfully, since the adoption of our Constitution, America has waved the flag – ostensibly at least – for the separation of Church and State, even going as far as the Supreme Court with McCollum v. Board of Education Dist 71 (1948), which banned religious instruction in public schools. However, in the case of gay rights, religion is the deep-rooted, most important factor in the justification for the denial of marriage among our gay citizens.

Marriage has long since been touted as a religious event, dating back to the “marriage” of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis. Marriage was the foundation of civilization, the divine joining of love between

a man and a woman as a devotion to the Lord. According to the Bible, the concept of this between homosexuals is not only against the Laws of God, but also anything remotely homosexual is referred to as purely carnal, not the slightest bit emotional or sacred.

The three oft-quoted passages of the Bible used to defend Christian bigotry against ho-

mosexuality are Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27, and the most cited example, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In this passage, God sends two angels to the neighboring towns to investigate the reported iniquity of its inhabitants. God promises Abraham if the angels can find even ten righteous people, he will not destroy the town. However, the angels are so taken aback

by Sodom’s “outcry against its people” that they send the call

to God to demolish the area.

The debate between theists and non-believers, as well as inter-fighting between Christians, has been over what is meant by “the sin of Sodom.”

Why was Sodom destroyed?

Some Christians believe it is stated very clearly: the men wanted to have sex with the male angels, God saw this as depraved, and decided to wipe

out the town. Reading the passage in its entirety, this theory is hard to refute. However, the tale of Sodom of Gomorrah is referenced numerous other times in the Bible, some blatantly blaming homosexuality, some not.

Jude 7 says, “Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as

an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

However, Ezekiel 16:49-50 states, “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it.” One

could attach homosexuality to the list of “abominable things” – a reference to Leviticus – but this doesn’t claim it was the only reason.

The Leviticus argument states “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” This is listed among the Letivical laws, rules ordained by God related through Moses on how to live a righteously Jewish life. Other laws include the forbiddance of

eating rabbits and pigs (11:67), sacrifice of “two turtledoves or two pigeons” as an offering to repent for masturbation (15:14), the forbiddance of sex with a woman on her period (18:19), and the penalty of death for adulterers (20:10).

What has always troubled me about Leviticus is if we clearly don’t follow the other rules anymore, why must we uphold the homosexual passage? This is a tried and trued debate, but one still worth acknowledging.

Moving onto the New Testament, which some Christians say are the truly applicable laws of their dogma, we find Romans: “...and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

The Letter of Paul to the Romans was written, along with the rest of the New Testament, well after Christ’s death. If Christianity is the religion of Christ’s teachings and homo-

sexuality is the abomination of God’s law that we are told it is, then why did Jesus in all of his speeches and parables leave it out? Look through the Gospels. You won’t find it. Romans is Paul’s interpretation of the faith. In addition, if homosexuality is at the top of God’s list of don’t’s, why isn’t it part of the Ten Commandments?

They are repeated three times in the Bible (Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21, Matthew 19:16-19). One would think it would be mentioned at least once, especially by Christ, but it is not. In fact, Jesus told us “do not judge, or you too will be judged”(Matthew 7:1-2) and to “love our neighbor as ourselves” (Mark 12:28-31). What part of that means that we should be allowed to get away with selective compassion?

By referencing these scriptures I am not trying to claim that Christians don’t have the right or the scriptural basis to dislike, hate, or even damn homosexuals, even though it seems antithetical to Christ’s message. I am also not claiming that all religious people are anti-gay. There are innumerable churches, catalogued by

state on gaychurch.org, that support and affirm homosexual men and women’s place in religion. And of course, famous televangelist Tammy Faye Baker proclaimed in our defense on more than one occasion, “God Don’t Make No Junk.” What is important is that wherever one’s religious views may align, we should not and cannot in a free America where we are supposed to keep God out of the courthouse allow lawmakers, politicians, or even small emphatic groups of believers withhold legal rights from homosexuals on religious grounds.

But unfortunately this is exactly what has and may continue to happen. It is not the middle of the road Christians who are the loudest in the campaign against rights for gay people.

They are the descendants of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two hate preachers who blamed gay people and the ones who support them for the tragedies of Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. Robertson, host of The 700 Club (an ultra conservative television program) and Falwell (now deceased) believed that AIDS was God’s

punishment for the sin of homosexuality. They were leaders in the Moral Majority movement throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s who got Evangelicals out to vote for their presidential nominees Ronald Reagan and Bush, Sr. and campaigned for “traditional” values, damning homosexual behavior as a crime against nature. I would be remiss not to mention Anita Bryant and the Westboro Baptists here. Bryant led an anti-gay movement of her own entitled “Save Our Children” – not to be confused with the philanthropic “Save the Children” – as a response to the then recent passing of a human rights ordinance in Florida that barred sexual orientation as being used for discriminatory grounds, the first legal statute of its kind. Bryant’s ultra-conservative Christian group got the law overturned and continued to serve, alongside Falwell, as the “God-fearing” opposition to gay equality throughout the ‘70s. The Westboro Baptist Church are a small group of “Christians” whose sole purpose seems to be to spread the fact that homosexuality is the root of all evil. They are the assholes (there really is no nice way to put it) who picket the funerals of dead soldiers with signs reading “God Crashed Your Plane” and “God Hates Fags.”

Their website is actually www. godhatesfag.com. That’s not a joke. Look it up. Or better yet, don’t.

If what St. Paul says is to be believed, then we must also accept Romans 14:13: “Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a

stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another.” Bob Barr clearly didn’t obey this edict when he wrote the Defense of Marriage Act.

states would have to legally acknowledge the marriages of those couples married in Hawaii within their own states.

Hence DOMA was born.

The question of gay marriage is a fairly recent dilemma in our nation’s history. (It wasn’t until 1973 that Maryland became the first state to legally define marriage as between a man and a woman) Something uniquely American, given our 10th Amendment, is that states have sovereignty to make laws and regulations not covered in the federal constitution, which allows gay marriage to be decided upon on a state by state basis, unless it is federally amending like the right for black people to vote.

The bill was signed into law

by President Clinton in 1996, officially defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

This embarrassing piece of legislature was one of two controversial bills (the other being Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in 1993) signed into law by Clinton, who ironically was supported by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay advocacy group in America, during the general election.

The idea for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) started in Hawaii when three same-sex couples fought the Hawaiian courts over the constitutionality of gay marriage’s prohibition in 2003. The court agreed to their demands, but the decision was quickly followed by an amendment to Hawaii’s constitution that defined marriage as between a man and woman.

(Hawaii later made civil unions legal in February 2011) DOMA was written out of fear that the fight for gay marriage would spread to the other states and disintegrate the “sanctity of marriage.” This was in large part because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution that states that judicial proceedings from one territory must be upheld in another. In the case of gay marriage, if Hawaii had allowed gay people to wed, other

President Obama and federal district court Judge Joseph L. Tairo have since debunked the constitutionality of the law, citing discriminatory grounds and the usurping of state’s rights.

Also, despite DOMA’s federal reach, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Iowa, Vermont, New York, and Washington, D.C. grant same-sex marriage rights to its citizens.

The recent passing of New York is a watershed because of sheer numbers; at present, 14.3% of the United States’ gay and lesbian couples can now wed; Maine hangs in the balance, awaiting a decision in 2012. In addition, Obama signed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act on December 22, 2010, which will allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military without the threat of discharge or the loss of benefits. These gestures are a step forward to acquiring rights for all of our gay citizens; however, they can very easily be reversed if Republicans are allowed to take back control of

the White House.

Popular GOP candidates for President like Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich are staunchly opposed to the idea of gay marriage and support its constitutional ban. As expected, these ideals stem from their faith.

Not only do they believe homosexuality is wrong, according to the common interpretation of the Bible, but the idea of gay marriage is an attack of the most personal order.

Some have claimed that it is not the idea of homosexual partnership, per se, that is offensive, but the phraseology of “marriage,” something seen as religious. Why not call it a domestic partnership or civil union? For starters, calling it something different creates a “separate but equal” mentality; we should have learned from the struggle for black rights that separate is never actually equal. Additionally, by calling it marriage, we would be afforded over 1000 federal and

state benefits such as sick leave to care for a partner, tax breaks, and the assumption of a spouse’s pension; whereas, civil unions and domestic partnerships only offer roughly 300 benefits and only on a state by state basis. If gay couples travel or move to a state that doesn’t honor gay marriage, their rights are null and void.

For those who believe that the word “marriage” is religious, therefore unworthy to acknowledge homosexuality, let me put your mind at ease. Most gay people are not looking for religious acceptance. We know this is a losing battle of wills. What we do want is to be afforded the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. But if marriage is truly a covenant with God, then let’s keep it that way. Marriage should cease to be a civil affair altogether and solely be recognized as a religious connection of body and spirit. But as long as people can get hitched for money on live television, Britney Spears can have a drive-thru drunken

nuptial in Vegas, and people can get wed and divorced into the double digits all under the umbrella of marriage, I should be allowed to make a solemn commitment to the man I love and reap all of the social and financial benefits the same way heterosexuals do.

A co-worker of mine recently asked me why gay people care about marriage in the first place because aren’t we just about sex? That’s like saying that all black people are gang-banging rappers. It’s just stupid. In fact, how can anyone even make this claim when among the heterosexual ranks lie Charlie Sheen, Jimmy Swaggart, Bill Clinton, Paris Hilton, John Edwards, Tiger Woods, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jenna Jameson, Ron Jeremy, Dustin Diamond, Charlie Chaplin, Rob Lowe, Jerry Lee Lewis, Eliot Spitzer, Kim Kardashian, Hugh Grant, David Letterman, Woody Allen, Anthony Weiner, and Mary Kay Letourneau? It is America that is over-sexualized. Turn on the

TV. We use pretty girls to sell everything. Beer, cars, clothes, Doritos, insurance. You name it, a half naked, ruby red lipsticked, large chested girl has been there. And clearly this is not for the homosexual community’s benefit.

Opponents to gay marriage also site the expectation of children as just cause to deny rights. Marriage’s purpose is to bear offspring and multiply.

OK, fine. Then really go with that. That would mean the old, the sterile, and the disinterested would also be denied the right to marry because they could not fulfill their obligation to society through the contract of marriage.

The idea of gay parenting is even scarier for the opposition.

How can two men raise a girl?

How will she find her identity?

And what if they raised a boy?

Surely, he would be homosexual. These fears are a blatant manifestation of their own homophobia and ignorance. In fact, there is no statistical proof that children of homosexuals are less likely to be “socially well adjusted” (whatever that means) or more likely to turn out gay than the children of heterosexual parents. If that were the case, no one would be gay because most gay people come from straight homes and certainly live in a straight dominated culture. This theory is just plain silly.

There is an archaic belief still held onto by the most ignorant that if gay men were allowed to be parents they would molest their male sons. This was disproven by the International Academy of Sex Research

back in 1978 so there is really no excuse for this theory in a modern world. Even the American Psychological Association, an organization that categorized homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1974, states that the “perception that most perpetrators [of molestation] are gay men is a myth and harmful stereotype.”

Thankfully, there are only a handful of states that harbor any of these sentiments by making gay adoption totally illegal: Utah, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Michigan. The other states adhere to a plethora of combinations such as permitting (or not specifically prohibiting) single GLBT adoption, joint adoption, and secondparent adoptions (the adoption of a partner’s child).

President Obama has some big decisions to make; decisions one would think would not come with so much resistance. For the first time, the majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. A recent Gallup poll from May 2011 shows that 53% of Americans believe that gay couples should have the same legal recognition as their straight counterparts. This is a drastic leap from 1996 when only 27% of the country supported same-sex marriage. Slowly, but surely, the country is evolving.

It would be comforting to hear that Obama’s views about gay marriage are “evolving” if they weren’t a back track.

In 1996 – the same year that only a quarter of the United States believed in marriage equality for homosexuals – he stated quite clearly in Outlines

newspaper, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” I believe in my heart that Barack Obama, the person, still believes that gay people deserve every right that straight people do, including marriage. The problem is Barack Obama, the politician. Yes, as President, you can’t come in and just do what you want; our congressional system is important and something that makes America great. And I know Obama is in the mix of the reelection game, but a lot of us voted for him because we believed he would be on our side. Maybe he is waiting until his 2nd term to take more drastic action. I want to love Obama because he is great and I believe in his mission, not because he is the lesser of two evils.

The next time he is pressured to take a stand or if that day actually comes when a bill passes his desk, I hope he remembers something he said in 2009: “For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know and I know that none of us wants to be defined by a part of what makes us whole. You’re also parents who worry about your children’s futures. You’re spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose their jobs.

You’re workers worried about the rising cost of health care.

You’re soldiers. You are neighbors. You are friends and most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future.”

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will prevent me from being able to see a doctor about it.”

A HISTORY OF HEALTH CARE REFORM IN AMERICA: HOW NAME-CALLING DELAYED PROGRESS FOR A CENTURY

T

he Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 comprise what is frequently referred to as the “2010 Health Care Reform.”

That is, supporters of the two bills tend to use that term. Opponents seem to prefer the

Laura Sheehan

pejorative “ObamaCare,” a term that has been bandied about so frequently that many people don’t even realize it's just a negative nickname. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services purchased advertising space on Google so that users searching the term “Obamaare” would see

the DHHS site listed first in an attempt to provide accurate and unbiased information to curious searchers.But health care reform has been called a lot worse: “unconstitutional,” “wholesale government takeover,” “democratic healthcare takeover,” “communist,” “fascist,” “socialist,” “Bolshevic,” “absurd,” “unfair,” “left-wingy,

ridonculous, strong-armingAmerican-citizens pile of shit…” (Okay, that last one is pure conjecture, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some TeaPartier let that one slip at one time or another). Inexplicably, Health Care Reform has even been compared to Nazism.

You might think all this namecalling is a bit extreme (and you’d be right), but at least opponents are creative with their vocabulary, right? Wrong.

The fight for universal health coverage has been going on for almost a century, and opponents have been participating in all sorts of nasty namecalling for almost as long.

Back in the late 1800’s, America became concerned with the increasing burden of medical care costs on its citizens, and in 1915 Congress finally began debating a bill that would provide universal medical coverage. Keep in mind that by this point, Britain, Hungary, Austria, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, France, Switzerland, and Germany had already implemented some form of national insurance. (Pay attention to that last country mentioned; those Deutsche played a significant role in why America ends up being 100 years behind the rest of the developed world).

At first, the 1915 bill for national health insurance seemed like a shoe-in. President Teddy Roosevelt supported the idea, the American Medical Association (AMA) was on board, and the country was on its way to catching up with the rest of the

developed world (in terms of health care for its citizens, at least).Sure, there was opposition. The American Federation of Labor (AFL) was against it, but that was because they wanted a monopoly on providing social benefits to workers.

In a time before collective bargaining, unions were desperate to remain as strong as possible, so I can almost see where they were coming from.

(Well, not really). Private insurance companies were against it too, of course. But for the most part, national health care was looking mighty promising.

Until World War I broke out.

All of a sudden, anything even remotely German was Bad News. Despite the fact that national health insurance was already being implemented in a dozen other countries, the fact that it was also being implemented in Germany was all the fodder opponents needed to start calling the concept "socialist," "communist," and "un-American."

And thus, national health care

was shelved for another 20 years.

Teddy's fifth cousin, Franklin, supported the idea of national health care coverage, too, but it was never a priority during Frankie's presidency. (Might have had something to do with the Great Depression, the New Deal, and all that World War II stuff). Truman was the first president to throw his full weight behind the issue, but by that time (late 1940's, early 1950's), anti-communism was at its peak. (Might have had something to do with those wars. You know, that Cold one and that Korean one?) "Socialized medicine," became the pejorative of choice for opponents. The American Medical Association, fearing that their doctors would lose out on money, turned tail on the idea.

In fact, they spent more money on their anti-national health insurance campaign than any other lobbying campaign in American history up to that point, publishing fear-inducing propaganda pamphlets that warned, "Would

socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of life?� Lenin thought so. He declared “socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state."

And so America continued to lag behind the rest of the developed world. Excellent health care was available, but only to those who could afford it.

It wasn't until the 1960's that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law an amendment that would provide nationallyfunded health care for those that were too old or too disabled to work (Medicare), but even then, a huge chunk of the American public was still left out in the cold. Too rich to be eligible for state-funded medical services for the indigent (Medicaid), but too poor to afford private health insurance, millions of Americans were living in a country that boasted some of the best-trained doctors and most-advanced medical facilities, and yet were unable to partake of either.

By 2010, one in six Americans did not have health insurance.

That's over 50 million people, including over seven million children. With the economic crash of 2008, America saw its first decline in population of those covered by private and employer-provided health insurance since they started recording that type of data in 1987. People were losing jobs, and without jobs, they lost their health insurance.

Those who had been paying for their own insurance were hit by the economic depression and could no longer afford it. Thousands of

people applied for nationally and state funded health insurance programs as a result, but not everyone was eligible.

Unemployed people who used to have employer-provided insurance found themselves ineligible for private insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Chronically-ill patients who could afford health insurance found their coverage capped at a certain dollar amount and had to pay out of pocket to continue receiving medical care. Young adults were expected to be able to afford their own health insurance, despite the fact that they were fresh out of high school or enrolled in college or hadn't been hired into the workforce yet. Uninsured self-employed workers (who make up the largest portion of uninsured workers) delayed taking themselves (or, sometimes, their children) to the emergency room when life-threatening injuries occurred for fear of the overwhelming cost.

Enter President Obama and his plan for health care reform. He proposed a variety of changes to the current health care system, including a Patient Bill of Rights, laws that would prevent children from being denied health care because they were already sick, provisions to grant Americans access to free preventative services (such as mammograms, colonoscopies, and prenatal care), and policies to provide funds to senior citizens who are unable to afford medication.

Let the name-calling begin.

Opponents dug into their bag of tried-and-true derogatory terms and threw the arsenal at Obama. It was a plan that had worked for almost 100 years, so why bother to change it?

But then something happened that the opponents didn't expect. The general public was not swayed by the calls of "socialism!" "communism!" and "Nazism!" Sure, there was opposition to the plan, concerns about the cost and efficiency of such a huge government system, but suddenly generalized, unfounded namecalling wasn't enough to persuade Americans to fear the concept of health care reform.

So they tried a few new tactics, the most amusing of which was the argument that Obama was rushing things. America wasn't ready to implement such a radical idea, they argued. The concept was untested and the country wasn't ready for it, they insisted.

Clearly, someone hadn't done their homework. Those of you who read the first half of this article know that every other developed nation in the world had already implemented similar policies, many of which had been in place for over a century. Obama's health care plan wasn't a risky, unplanned venture, it was an attempt to bring America up to speed with the rest of the developed world.

When Congress finally approved the health care reform bill last year, 49% of Americans thought it was a good thing, while 40% disagreed and 11% didn't care. Not an overwhelm-

ing victory, but it was enough.

Congress had spoken. The people had spoken. Seeing a doctor was no longer a privilege for those lucky enough to be eligible for health insurance. Having emergency surgery without having to declare bankruptcy was no longer something only rich people could do.

Finally, 100 years late, every American had the right to medical care.

Opponents of health care reform realized they were wrong and apologized for being dickheads.Overnight, Americans received new health insurance cards that gave them access to free abortions and free breast implants. Cancer was cured and cigarettes were abolished and puppies frolicked free in the streets of town.

Okay, maybe not.

Health care reform is not perfect. It is going to take almost a decade to fully implement. It has created (yet another) huge government program. It will not solve all of the country's health care problems. Cancer has not yet been cured, cigarettes will never be outlawed, and puppies continue to contain their frolicking to designated dog parks. And, of course, opponents are still name-calling and fear-mongering.

So where do we go from here?

I enjoy a good scary movie as much as anyone else, and probably enjoy frolicking puppies more than anyone else, but my advice is this: Let's stop with the over-the-top, unrealistic, this-plan-will- destroyour-country-and-make-us-allslaves-to-the-Obama-controlled-communist-government arguments. Let's also skip the over-the-top, idealistic, this-plan-will-solve-all-of-our-

health-care-problems arguments. Politicians need to stop trying to force Americans to fear change, and stop promising us unrealistic happily-ever-afters We all need to realize that medical care is a right, not a privilege, and although it took us 100 years to declare that, that's the reality now and we’ve got to accept that. We've got a plan, it's got some public support, it's been signed in by our governmental officials, and it's already being implemented.

So let's get our heads out of our asses and out of the clouds and start making it work.

And no, douchebags, that doesn't involve name-calling.

The

Politico: Young Invincibles

Young Invincibles.org began in the summer of 2009 out of the recognition that young people’s voices were not being heard in the debate over health care reform.

Through cutting-edge policy research and analysis, sharing the stories of young Americans, campaigns designed to educate, inform and mobilize our generation and advocacy intended to change the status quo, The Young Invincibles are making a difference in the young uninsured.

We sat down with Jennifer Mishory to discuss why the healthcare debate is one that young people should really get involved.

We all know there is never a shortage of issues to get active about. Would you say that you chose healthcare or it chose you?

Health care reform was all the buzz in Washington in 2009, and we knew that young people cared - but Washington wasn't listening. We couldn't not get involved.

You're right though, that there are never a shortage of issues.

Our work in health care reform has since spurred us to get into other issues that impact young adults as well.

What was the origin of Young Invincibles?

Young Invincibles got started by a group of students and young workers. We were all concerned that young people's voices were not being heard as Washington debated health care reform, and we wanted to change that. By the time health reform passed and we graduated, we knew our work was far from over.

We hear a lot of uninsured horror stories in this country surrounding the healthcare system. Have you personally witnessed or had someone close to you experience the burden of being unable to afford medical treatment?

Absolutely. I've had friends and family avoid treatment pretty consistently because they didn't know how much it was going to cost them, or because they knew it was going to be more than they could afford. My work with YI has expanded my interactions

beyond just friends and family, however. Our members come from across the country and have some pretty compelling stories to tell. Stories of an $80,000 chemotherapy bill left unpaid by insurance; of a young diabetic woman unable to find any even moderately affordable insurance options; of one student with an autoimmune disease that would have rendered her without coverage after graduation, if not for the new dependent coverage extension.

To the outside world, particularly other industrialized nations, Americans must seem extremely selfish and cold-hearted to allow so many of their fellow citizens to go uninsured. Why is there such a debate in this country about an idea that seems so basic to the rest of the industrialized world? Is it really just apathy? Or if not, why the debate?

The health care industry in this country has a long and complicated history, one that I won't bore you with here. Suffice it to say that it is pretty shocking that there have been so many bad practices and terrible consequences going on in the health care arena for so long. At the same time, we know that those practices do not reflect the will of everyday Americans. Most Americans do believe that everyone low-income, sick, young, old should have access to care. It had just been a huge uphill battle to convince those in power to improve that access.

If you're a young person under the age of 30, why

should you get interested in health care reform? You're young and healthy. You don't really even need healthcare, right?

We like to call this the "myth of the young invincible" - hence our name. First of all, young people do get sick and injured - we go to the ER more than any other age group under the age of 75, many of us have chronic conditions, and about 16% of us have pre-existing conditions. We also need preventive care to ensure that we stay healthy. At the same time, we're also the most lowincome age group. So even if we need less care than someone who is 63, we have less resources to afford the care that we do need. Medical bills are very difficult to afford out of pocket.

It's no wonder that young people were so supportive of health care reform.

Attempting to read the Healthcare Reform bill is a daunting task. It's massive!

On top of that, we also have Sen. Paul Ryan's proposed plan. How can we know which one is best for our needs?

The reform bill was certainly long, in part because there was a lot to fix. Here are a few good things to highlight for young adults. The bill expands consumer protections for individuals purchasing private insurance. More of your premium dollars go to care and not insurance profit. You'll be able to buy insurance off of a competitive Expedia-like exchange. You can stay on your

healthier behavior is a major driving force behind reducing costs. But that will take everyone working together to make that change, and there were some strong provisions in the health care reform law that help with that.

If President Obama is reelected, what can we expect in terms of further reform?

And if he isn't?

We'll see continued implementation of health care reform if the President is re-elected. It's hard to predict what would happen otherwise.

Finally, what has been, in your opinion, Young Invincibles greatest achievement to date?

parent's plan until 26 if your mom or dad has coverage. If you're very low-income, you can now be covered by Medicaid starting in 2014. If you're low to middle-income, you can get a tax credit to purchase insurance. And, if you have a pre-existing condition, you can still buy coverage - companies can't discriminate against you.

There's a lot of good stuff in there. Chairman Ryan's proposal would repeal all of it.

Many critics accused President Obama of losing focus on the economy in order to push his healthcare agenda. Supporters argue that healthcare reform is an

economic issue. Where do you align?

Health care is certainly an economic issue. But outside of health care, there's a lot of work to do for young people to put them back to work, and that's something that YI is advocating on as well.

America as a nation is very unhealthy. How much of lowering healthcare costs would simply come from changing our behavior in terms of nutrition and exercise?

Changing behavior is an important aspect of it. We need to engage in better preventive behavior as a country;

That's a tough one. We've had some great policy wins, but I have to say that nothing beats giving our members the opportunity to share their stories in public - whether they're talking to a reporter, writing letters to the editor, blogging, putting up a Facebook post, talking at a press conference on Capitol Hill, or testifying at a Senate hearing. It's inspiring to me to see my peers get involved and find a powerful voice.

Make Sure To Check Out Our First Issue: “ Introducing the Big Bang Generation” Follow Us: @mercutiomag Don’t Forget to Click “Like” on the Mercutio Magazine Facebook Page www.facebook.com/MercutioMagazine

our flag History: The legend goes that Betsy Ross, family friend of George Washington, was commissioned to make the first flag in the June of 1776. This “truth” has been questioned by historians because of the lack of physical evidence (i.e. diary entries, the minutes of Congressional meetings, proof that Ross and Washington even knew each other) to substantiate the claim. The myth was spread 34 years later by her grandson, William J. Canby, who claimed that Ross told him stories of her involvement when he was a child. The story became public history after the Civil War as a means to unite the fractured country and was continued throughout the end of the century to boost immigration. This tale has been woven into the American lexicon as fact. In truth, Ms. Ross was probably, at best, part of a large committee that worked on the flag.

Respect: The American Flag is viewed as a sacred object in our country and treated as a living manifestation of the principles we hold dear. On December 22, 1924, the National Flag Code was adopted to dictate guidelines on how to respect our most precious of symbols. This code tells the American people how and when to display the flag, how to show respect for the flag (such as not letting it touch the ground), and officially makes the Star-Spangled Banner our national anthem.

On June 22, 1942, the Pledge of Allegiance – created in 1892 to commemorate Columbus’ “discovery” of America 400 year earlier – was officially added to the Flag Code. It wasn’t until 1954 that the controversial appositive “one nation under God” was added by President Eisenhower to “reaffirm the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future.”

Flag Day, June 14, celebrates the adoption of the flag as America’s symbol in 1777.

President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed it a nationwide observation in 1916 while President Truman made it a permanent observance in 1949 by Congressional order.

The First Amendment: Despite the National Flag Code, the punishments for not adhering to its rules are left up to the states, making the infractions not federal offenses. In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled in the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that the federal government could not force people to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of

Allegiance on the grounds of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Free Speech protection also falls under actions such as burning or wearing the flag. This ruling took on an additional First Amendment protection when “one nation under God” was added, permitting citizens to refuse its recitation on religious grounds.

As recent as 2006, the Senate rejected the Flag Desecration Act, a proposed amendment that would “prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States,” on the grounds of constitutionality.

The Flag Abroad: Serving as a symbol of America’s history and values, the American flag takes on a slightly different symbolism abroad. For the immigrants who long to travel here, it is the tapestry of hope, the shawl of the Statue of Liberty, a tangibility of the American Dream. For our enemies, the flag, when burned or desecrated, is tantamount to our symbolic destruction.

America: Hollywood Style

The First Thanksgiving This is America, Charlie Brown: The Mayflower Voyagers (Evert Brown, 1988) Jonathon Saia

I

n America, Thanksgiving is viewed as the official merging of the Old World and the New, that friendly dinner between a band of Puritan Pilgrims from England and the native people who saved them from destitution. Where this is not untrue, there is more to the story than is celebrated in our folklore.

For starters, the Puritans did not come from England. Yes, they were English and techni-

cally they departed from England (Plymouth to be exact), but prior to their voyage west, they had been living in Holland for the past ten years.

England at the time was a theocracy and any dissent from the beliefs of her Church was considered heretical. The Puritans were disdainful of the requisite compromise needed from different faiths to create an all-encompassing religion and decided to try and change the system from within. The

most devote of the Puritans, who came to be known as the Separatists, longed to make change by splintering off into their own group.

These Christians preached the verbatim word of the Bible and viewed anything outside of its pages as distortive of God’s message. They had no use for genuflection, bishops, or making the sign of the cross. They also believed that God, in his infinite wisdom, even though

they loved and worshipped him, may not choose them for the everlasting light. This accounted for their intense work ethic because they thought that if they were doing good things, God must have put that desire within them, proving that they were chosen for salvation.

Around the same time as John Smith arrived in Jamestown, the Puritans arrived in Holland, selected for its reputation as a religiously tolerant nation.

Unfortunately as immigrants, they were stuck working degrading jobs for many hours under difficult circumstances.

Also, through their tenure in the country, the political climate of Holland had become volatile. Interestingly, it was their ethnocentrism that made them take action. They feared their children would lose their English identity, so despite their religious freedom, the Puritans began to seek sanctuary elsewhere.

The New World, however, was a dangerous proposal.

Jamestown was floundering and there was the ever-present fear of the Indians and the other unknown terrors that may await them on the shores.

Nevertheless, they felt a calling, a Christian duty, to spread the word of God. They headed back to England and on September 6th, 1620, the Mayflower set sail for America.

But who was on it? “The Pilgrims, of course!” The Pilgrims, however, is not synonymous with the Puritans. This fact gets lost in the shuffle, giving the impression that the ship was captained, crewed, and populated with people seeking reli-

gious freedom. Master Jones, Captain of the Mayflower, and his crew were not. They were simply doing their job and had no plans to stay at the settlement. Neither were the Strangers (named because they were unknown to the Puritans) seeking freedom. They were indentured servants, orphans, and men, like their Jamestown counterparts, seeking gold. I can only imagine the tension between the humble Puritans, who saw greed as abhorrent, and the eager prospectors on that long journey across the Atlantic. In all, only 41 of the 102 Pilgrims were Puritans.

It is interesting to note that although the Puritans felt a desire and a striving for the separation of man from the material world, they were by no means adopters of “the meek shall inherit” mantra of Christ. Similar to their view that God instilled goodness in His chosen, they also felt that the growing presence of the homeless and the downtrodden– the very people Jesus associated – in England were a symbol of God’s displeasure with the sin of the community, taking it as a sign to extradite themselves from that community so as not to displease God. In addition, as a part of securing their charter, they had agreed to share any profits with the Merchant Adventures, the group that secured their voyage, so clearly money was not invisible from their minds.

And what was this Mayflower Compact thing? As they traveled to a new land with no rules, the settlers decided to draw up a document, designed as an agreement amongst

themselves how to gover, which came to be known as the Mayflower Compact. It is very short, but it introduces what would become one of the main tenets of the American system: governmental rule by the people with the privilege to write and decide upon laws as they deemed necessary.

However, this did not serve as the template for the Declaration of Independence as some have claimed because it clearly states its loyalty to King James. There is a touch of irony in the inclusion of his sobriquet Defender of the Faith when the reason the Puritans left England at all was because he refused them license to defend their own faith. It should also be said that even though the Mayflower Compact clearly states Puritan intentions – “Having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith... a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern part of Virginia...”

– it was signed by the Strangers. Despite their desire to return the Christian faith back to its roots, ergo supporting a Puritan based theocracy, the Puritans had learned of the dangers of a church ruled government in England and the benefits of being free in Holland. The Mayflower Compact was kept free of any verbage designed to give religion authority, essentially creating the separation between Church and State. This split later continued to the institution of marriage when newly appointed Puritan Governor William Bradford decreed that weddings should remain civil ceremonies because the Gospels did not specify that a minister should take part in a marriage.

There is the cultural assumption that we set out for and landed on Plymouth Rock.

Plymouth, whose original Indian name was Patuxet, was actually the second place the Mayflower docked after Provincetown Harbor proved to be uninhabitable. Actually, the Mayflower’s charter was for Virginia near the Hudson River, but violent winds and tumultuous currents made this voyage impossible, causing Master Jones to make the decision to sail north to Cape Cod. It seems strange that they renamed their new home Plymouth after a town in the very country they were leaving to avoid. One would think they would not want this correlative, but perhaps they saw it as a new start at making “England” better.

What about Squanto and the corn and the fish? There is no

reason to disbelief that he existed nor that he was as helpful as history claims, but there are many things not discussed about this scenario.

Squanto lived an interesting life. Years prior, he had been kidnapped by the British and sold into slavery in Spain.

He was saved by a group of monks (under the auspice of “saving” his soul), found his way to England, and was sent back to Cape Cod with Capt.

Thomas Dermer as a guide to aid in exploration. It was during these travels that he learned English.

All of the corn the settlers planted did not come from Squanto himself. Some of the corn was stolen by the Pilgrims from a neighboring tribe while they were migrating. This was not the only thing they stole along their journeys either.

The deserted houses and

graves of the natives boasted a trove of items the growingly disenfranchised Pilgrims could use for themselves. However, to the Pilgrims’ credit (under Squanto’s strong suggestion to further diplomacy), the tribe was later repaid.

And the fish as fertilizer? Some historians argue over its origin.

History teaches us that it is an old Indian tradition. Others believe that Squanto learned this technique as an ex-patriot from the Europeans. Chances are the historical theory is accurate because if this were a European tactic, the odds are high that the Pilgrims may have known it. This version of “fact” sounds like an attempt to discredit the accomplishments of the Native Americans.

There is a lot of talk over the actions of the Pilgrims toward the Native Americans that first Thanksgiving. The most “pa-

triotic” among us believe that it was a peaceful, beautiful moment in our history where we brought the savages into modernity without bloodshed.

The most “liberal” of us describe it as a massacre, an unspeakable blunder on the soul of America, tantamount to the Holocaust. These statements are both half right and half wrong.

The “patriotic” theory is wrong because they were not “savages” unless the modern definition remains the same as the antiquated one: non-Christian.

The Puritans did look upon the natives – and anyone who didn’t belong to their cult – as savages. One of the major reasons they went to America was to prosthelytize. The only reason they didn’t upon arrival was because they knew they needed the natives to survive and had to keep peace. Puritan William Bradford wrote in his

famous account Of Plymouth Plantation (1606-1646) that the natives were “savage people, who are cruel, barbarous, and most treacherous.” Does this sound like a man who willingly wanted to break bread with the Indians? And “modernity” is simply a nice way of saying “Western.”

The bloodshed came later during the Pequot War (1636) and King Philip’s War (1675) – both over land – with the arrival of more English settlers. The “liberals” are incorrect to say that the first Thanksgiving was a bloodbath, but it wasn’t out of a lack of desire.

The meal that eventually became known as The First Thanksgiving came at the end of their first year in Cape Cod. It was harvest time and the Pilgrims had had their first bumper crop thanks to the guidance of the natives. Chief Massas-

oit, leader of the Wampanoag Confederacy, brought 90 of his tribesman and several deer to share in the feast as an act of friendship to commemorate their newly appointed commitment to one another.

Earlier in the year, the Pilgrims and the Indians had signed the Pilgrim-Wampanoag Peace treaty, as an alliance between the two groups, explicitly stating that no harm should come to either group, that England saw them as an ally, and they would protect each other in times of crisis. The Pilgrims held up their end of the bargain after Massasoit was kidnapped and they attempted a rescue.

Massasoit was struck by their loyalty and he, along with nine other chiefs, signed an additional treaty reaffirming the alliance. Sadly, the settlers to come would not hold up their end of the bargain.

You would think that an event as famous as the First Thanksgiving would be showered with film adaptations. Where is the big budget epic from Steven Spielberg or James Cameron?

Or the edgy retelling from the Coen Brothers or Clint Eastwood? The only major Hollywood version of this story, Plymouth Adventure, comes from 1952 and tells a fictional love story between some of the passengers. There’s also the TV film Mayflower: The Pilgrims’ Adventure (1979), but most of this action takes place on the boat. I wanted something more historical, more educational, something that was at least attempting to tell the story of the Puritans and the Native Americans and the saga of Thanksgiving.

This is America, Charlie Brown (1988-1989) is an eight part miniseries that covers some of the major accomplishments in our nation’s history like the Constitution and the building of the railroad. “The Mayflower Voyagers” continues the familiar version of the tale, highlighting the heroism of the English and the helpfulness of Squanto, Massasoit, and Samoset, even including his famous intro, “Welcome Englishmen.”

Peanuts creator Charles Shultz includes well-known details like the number of passengers, the use of the giant screw to fix the broken beam, the plague that wiped out the Patuxet tribe, the Mayflower Compact, and the Pilgrims’ fear of the Indians.

He gets extra credit for mentioning the diverse make-up of the Mayflower voyagers, the treaty between the Indians and the Pilgrims, and Squanto’s kidnapping by the English, but

glosses over the probable tension of the groups and the truth of Squanto’s release. Schultz’s Squanto “served a wonderful man who helped [him] learn English and that man finally gave [him his] freedom.” I have already mentioned the English’s true motives for bringing him back to Cape Cod, which was also the reason they taught him English. Notice the glazed smiles and wondrous eyes of Charlie Brown and the Gang as they listen to the heroic act of an Englishman who saved Squanto from slavery.

Schultz, of course, uses his iconic characters throughout as the lens through which the story is told. It is Woodstock and Snoopy who first sight land and Charlie Brown is our narrator. The children’s role in the success of the community is also made very important.

The film places the kids as nursemaids, taking care of the sick and washing clothes, with Lucy (who else?) taking charge. Charlie Brown tells us that none of the children in Plymouth died. This is untrue.

Several families, including children, had been wiped out by the difficult conditions. What is true is that a number of children outlived their parents.

This coupled with the orphans originally onboard the Mayflower suggests the ratio of child to adult may have skewed in the children’s favor, which works perfectly for a universe like Peanuts, composed of children wise beyond their years.

Schultz also paints the postSquanto planting as a time of deathless prosperity. Comparatively speaking, it was; however, it was during this time

that their own governor, John Carver, died. This exacerbated the growing conflicts between the settlers, brought about by many months of extenuating circumstances.

Through the leadership of William Bradford and the newly affirmed treaty between the natives and the settlers, the familiar idea of a brotherhood of man during the Thanksgiving celebration is probably portrayed here fairly accurately. The film is also correct in not portraying pumpkin pies; the Pilgrims had been out of flour for quite sometime prior, making pastries impossible.

The forks they use are anachronistic; forks did not arrive in Plymouth until the end of the 17th Century.

Perhaps the most subtly telling and historically foreshadowing item in “The Mayflower Voyagers” comes in its last line of dialogue. Squanto turns to Charlie Brown – as Lucy, Snoopy, and Schroeder dance to and play the familiar “Linus and Lucy” theme – and says, “There are still a few of your customs I don’t understand.”

Talk about an understatement.

This First Thanksgiving was not a precedent setting event.

The second Thanksgiving took place two years later as a thank you to God for the end of a drought and then not again until June of 1676 as a celebration over an Indian conquest. (Chances are there weren’t any natives joining in those festivities) It was celebrated again in 1777 as a singular event to honor the victory over the British at Saratoga. George Washington tried

to make it a national holiday in 1789, but many of the colonists didn’t think the event was important enough to declare a special day. Then in 1863, after years of begging from editorialist Sarah Joseph Hale (writer of the poem “Mary Had a Little Lamb”), Abraham Lincoln declared the last Thursday in November as Thanksgiving.

In 1939, deep in the thick of the Great Depression, FDR pushed Thanksgiving up a week to try and give retailers extra time to generate revenue. The custom, as it still is now, was that Christmas shopping would commence after Thanksgiving. Various groups such as football coaches who set their schedules around Thanksgiving Day games, calendar makers who had already gone to print, and small retailers who would potentially be losing an additional week of receipts to the bigger corporations complained to anyone who would listen. Some governors even refused to implement the shift, keeping families from around the country apart depending on which Thursday their state was celebrating.

FDR rescinded the switch in 1941 and Congress officially made Thanksgiving the last Thursday in November.

God

in

Film

Alana Kuwabara

“Most writers set out to tell a story, knowing that who they are and what they believe will whisper its way in just as they do in one’s daily life; their personality and beliefs will sink below the word-surface like a stain; they will be inside events the way the peach seed grows inside the peach.”

– Doris Betts, writer and Alumni Distinguished Professor Emerita at UNC Chapel Hill

A

rt imitates life. Life imitates art. The wheels on the bus go round and round. But what about when it comes to portrayals of religious faith in film?

Can we correlate the religious and cultural landscape of America with the religious and cultural landscape of film over their coinciding histories?

Maybe.

But that would take way too long and we’re already in over our heads by putting “faith” and “film” in the same sentence.

What we can do is see how film representations of G-O-D have tracked alongside our increasingly pluralistic society over the past couple of decades.

Most depictions of God and the afterlife in film in America have been Christian. America’s foundation is Christian. In fact, this great nation wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for a handful of Christians who felt they were following the call of the God Almighty. Nor would our system of government, starting with the Constitution.

Another crucial but less obvious reason for Judeo-Christian representations of God is that other major religions forbid pictorial depictions of god (Remember the whole Danish, cartoon Muhammad fiasco and the South Park satire thereof?).

Others have too many gods to fit into 130 pages. So, we are left with the Christian God who is (aren’t filmmakers lucky?) actually considered to be three persons. While this writer can only think of one time – in a controversial book called The Shack – anyone has attempted to describe physically the Holy Spirit part of the Trinity, Jesus aka The GodMan has been depicted too many times to name and even Yahweh Himself has had something of a career in

film – either in disembodied voice or, less often, in physical form.

In the beginning (circa 1930), Will H. Hays, former RNC chairman, Presbyterian elder and Postmaster General under President Harding, created the Motion Picture Production Code and spake thus, saying: 1. No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.

2. Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion should not be used as comic characters or as villains.

3. Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and respectfully handled.

Hold on - we’ve already skipped too far ahead.

In 1915, the Supreme Court decided – unanimously – in Mutual Film Corporation v.

Industrial Commission of Ohio that freedom of speech did not extend to motion pictures because they were a business, not an art form. Let’s not forget, film as we know it today had begun only 20 or so years earlier with pornography – from the seaside peepshows to the plethora of stag films produced throughout the 1920s – existing along side the likes of DeMille and Griffith. (As they say, want to know where technology is going? Look to the porn industry) So, it’s not too surprising that in 1921 alone, one hundred movie censorship bills across 37 states were put into motion.

The Production Code, also known as the Hays Code,

was put into place as a reaction to studio scandals (the murder of William Desmond Taylor, the Fatty Arbuckle Trial, Wallace Reid’s drug addiction) and risqué films (Baby Face, Little Caesar, and anything Mae West could get her hands on) as yet another attempt to clean up Hollywood from within, rather than via state legislature. Even though it was the ‘20s, when mobsters and merry murderesses, short skirts and speakeasies were de rigueur, Hollywood felt a pressure to clean up its image.

What is somewhat surprising, at least, I think, to our postmodern relativist society, is that “cleaning up Hollywood” was a desirable goal. Clearly, America was a place that was concerned about its moral integrity – defining it and preserving it. Americans were also concerned about the creeping involvement of government outside of its boundaries as defined by the Constitution – though this was nothing new.

The Production Code was

put into place, not as law, but as self-censorship largely to keep from being censored by an over-reaching government.

It wasn’t until 1952 that the Supreme Court overturned its ruling, finally deciding that filmmaking wasn’t purely business – and therefore “not to be regarded….as part of the press of the country or as organs of public opinion” – but was actually and also art and, therefore, free to speak. If that hadn’t been decided, there’d be no point to this article. We wouldn’t be able to even consider the idea that film can follow Hamlet’s advice (or was it Shakespeare’s personal plea?) to the players in Act III, Scene 2: “….the purpose of playing, whose end both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.”

This gives us a peek into the cultural and religious landscape of the time. Neither Pew nor Gallup were around to take a survey of who believed what, but I think it’s safe to say the majority believed boundaries were needed. Hays writes a pretty compelling argument in the “Reasons Supporting the Preamble of the Code” which I think, while we may need to reinterpret the application of some of these rules, is absolutely true, logical and wise: I. Theatrical motion pictures, that is, pictures intended for the theatre as distinct from pictures intended for churches, schools, lecture halls, educational movements, social reform movements, etc., are primarily to be regarded as ENTERTAINMENT. Mankind has always recognized the importance of entertainment and its value in rebuilding the bodies and souls of human beings.

But it has always recognized that entertainment can be a character either HELPFUL or HARMFUL to the human race, and in consequence has clearly distinguished between: a. Entertainment which tends to improve the race, or at least to re-create and rebuild human beings exhausted with the realities of life; and b. Entertainment which tends to degrade human beings, or to lower their standards of life and living.

Hence the MORAL IMPORTANCE of entertainment is something which has been universally recognized. It enters intimately into the lives of men

and women and affects them closely; it occupies their minds and affections during leisure hours; and ultimately touches the whole of their lives. A man may be judged by his standard of entertainment as easily as by the standard of his work.

So correct entertainment raises the whole standard of a nation.

Wrong entertainment lowers the whole living conditions and moral ideals of a race.

Note, for example, the healthy reactions to healthful sports, like baseball, golf; the unhealthy reactions to sports like cockfighting, bullfighting, bear baiting, etc.

Note, too, the effect on ancient nations of gladiatorial combats, the obscene plays of Roman times, etc.

Now, the problem with censorship, even self-imposed, is that it…censors. Hays’ “formula” effectively relegated depictions of religion to the sacred, especially depictions of God in corporeal form, and so for the next several decades, God was only seen in strictly religious dramas. This falls right in line with how the Church in general has often (mis)handled acting and drama.

God made his big screen debut in 1936 in The Green Pastures – a film adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize winning play. He was “de Lawd” in this all-Black collection of Sunday school stories and was played by notable Black actor of the time, Rex Ingram. The entire film is available in parts on YouTube but prepare yourself to be bombarded with extreme

racial stereotypes and, if you’re in the know, elements that are theologically unsound, to say the least. Angels living on a cotton plantation, smoking cigars, having fish fries and making custard for de Lawd – this is Heaven. Child angels are yelled at for reckless play; one almost dies (can they die?) choking on a fish bone. Nonetheless, God, sporting white hair and a black suit, appears, sings and “passes a miracle”: “Let dere be some firmament.

And when I say ‘Let dere be some firmament’ I don’ mean no little bitty dab o’ firmament ‘cause I’m sick an’ tired o’ runnin’ out o’ it when we need it.

Let dere be a whole mess o’ firmament.”

In spite of its racial and theological problems, it was somewhat revolutionary at the time, not least for depicting God in the flesh. It would be over 40 years later that God would appear on screen again. In the meantime, his presence was felt via proxy or voiceover, most notably in John Huston’s The Ten Commandments which made Charlton Heston a star. The film was so big that even now when you Google “the ten commandments” two of the top five results are for the film, not the Biblical mandates. It grossed today’s equivalent of $750 million dollars in North America alone.

That was 1956. In 1977, God appeared in his first comedy (the Production Code having been abolished in 1968 and later replaced by the Motion Picture Association of America’s rating system), Carl Reiner’s Oh, God! where he was

played by Jewish actor and comedian George Burns. This seemed to usher in a decadelong spate of comedies about God that no one remembers like In God We Tru$t (1980), a Marty Feldman film about a monk, a hooker and a televangelist (Doesn’t that sound like the set-up to a bad joke?) or Two of a Kind (1983) which tried to ride the coattails of Grease by pairing John Travolta and Olivia Newton John in a convoluted story about golf-playing angels trying to convince God not to send another flood by showing that an ordinary man, Travolta, can change.

Never mind that if we’re to believe the Flood story then we ought to believe that God invented the rainbow specifically as a promise He would never flood the earth again. I’m sure it’s not little details like that which kept these movies from seeing success. The plots were flat and the jokes were flatter.

romantic comedy One Hell of a Guy and the infamous Kevin Smith film, Dogma. Interestingly enough, the latter two featured female representations of god – Sandra Bernhard’s voice in the first, Alanis Morrisette as a visible but mostly silent flower child in the second.

Then there was a gap of 10 years between 1988 and 1998 where there were no major films directly about or starring God at all until, suddenly, there were three: the animated film Prince of Egypt, the Rob Lowe

So while many Americans of the Roaring Twenties were growing concerned about how entertainment was effecting the “living conditions and moral ideals” of America, many Americans of the Oughties are

Then, finally, in 2003, we came full circle – so to speak – with Morgan Freeman playing Go in

Bruce Almighty and then Evan Almighty in 2007. This time, the Black God sported a white suit with his white hair.

clamoring for more sex, more violence, more spectacle.

Hays decreed that “Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown.” But today you have to actually flash your nipple on live, primetime TV before anyone would even make a phone call. Films with simulated sex, full frontal nudity – in comedy, drama or even horror, graphic violence that gets more and more real as technology advances – these films receive an R rating and if people don’t like the content then they just don’t go. Rare is the boycott these days, even from Christians.

Can you imagine someone stepping up, as a representative of America’s interests in Hollywood, and saying “These Jackass movies have got to go. Where is our integrity?

What’s happened to our morality? Won’t someone come and clean up this mess – it’s negatively affecting our society!” and then having someone actually try to do just that? 2011 is a different time, my friends.

The Industry supplies what the customer demands and judging by the box office in spite of many claims of how well family films do, the customer demands celebrity scandal and nips.

How does all this factor into America as a society?

The changing approaches to censorship and faith in film does seem to link with the changing landscape of America.

Now, the United States does not include questions about religion in its census and has not for many years. This has been left to surveys and polls.

The problem with that is, these surveys are usually done by telephone – often home phone, even in the digital age (I don’t have a home phone, do you?

Just the cell) and so those who do not have a home phone, those who do not like or understand cold calls and those who are afraid or reluctant to identify their faith to some stranger on the other line do not end up factoring in to the numbers. Of course, most people only bring this up when they think the results are too high or too low and want something to blame it on. Regardless, it is something to take into consideration.

“The largest, most comprehensive surveys on religious identification were done in sociologists Barry A. Kosmin, Seymour P. Lachman and associates at the Graduate School of the City University of New York. Their first major study was done in 1990: the National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI). This

scientific nationwide survey of 113,000 Americans asked about religious preference, along with other questions.

They followed this up, with even more sophisticated methodology and more questions, with the American Religious Identity Survey (ARIS) conducted in 2001, with a sample size of 50,000 Americans.”

of God felt he was actually far more secular and not as specifically religious as he should have been. The Passion of the Christ came along soon after in 2004, attempting to give us a painfully realistic, traditional (if not very Catholic) portrayal of Jesus and the Devil, though not much was done about God Himself.

According to these studies, between 1990 and 2001, adults who identified themselves as Christians increased by more than 5% reaching 76.5% of the population. However, the percentage of adults who identified themselves as Nonreligious/Secular increased to 13.2% - that’s a jump of over 110%!

If I may bring in television for just a moment, a crucial moment in faith-in-film history happened on the finale of Lost.

The main characters meet together in an inter-faith holy building, which I am hesitant to call a “church,” after having been stranded in a Purgatorylike alternate universe until they could reunite with the people who meant the most to them when they were alive and, finally, enter the blinding white light that is the afterlife. Pluralism at its finest and certainly the kind of melange of ideas that Americans wouldn’t even have considered to put together a few decades prior but now seems almost a necessary nod to inclusivity. But why?

This was during the time when God disappeared from the silver screen. Scott Hughes, of The Guardian, when writing about God in film in anticipation of the release of Bruce Almighty, suggested that the sudden burst of God Films in 1998 and 1999 may have been due to “some pre-millennial fervor”. Yet, only one of those films carried a traditional Christian message. Is satirising God and the Church on the possible eve of the end of the world really a good idea? I’m just asking. So, perhaps these nontraditional religious films were more related to the growth in secularism. Perhaps they were attempts to “imitate life” and examine, perhaps even redefine, the sacred.

Then we go from satire and reinvention to, what may seem at first, a traditional God in Bruce Almighty in 2003. However, critics of this portrayal

Often, it seems that Hollywood wants to tell a story and make it funny and profitable but not offend anyone. So they anthropomorphize God, make him palatable for everyone by drawing with broad strokes and staying away from the whole hellfire and damnation thing.

But does this benefit the audience? Did we even ask to be placated by mostly benign depictions of weak gods who need one helpless, hapless man to get the world to believe? Maybe we’d rather be challenged. Maybe we’d prefer

to be presented with accurate portrayals so we can make our own decisions.

Maybe.

There are those from more conservative value backgrounds who would say Hollywood needs to be cleaned up.

Kirk Cameron thinks this can be done with Christian films, aimed at Christians but shown on the big screen. He’s wrong.

There are those who boycott and letter-write and try to bang down the doors of Hollywood to make sure their opinions are known. They want censorship for all based on their arbitrary personal preferences. They’re wrong.

And then there are those who are right, who understand that if they don’t like the way film is contributing to the moral decline of America, small, incremental change is required from the inside. People who, like those in Hollywood in the late ‘20s , see the need to define

and protect decency and moral uprightness, who will sit in writer’s rooms, form production companies, produce films that adhere to their set of values and express those values within the proper context. Those are the people who will not only help keep that 75% happy (for the most part. Some Christians are just waiting around to be offended by Hollywood) while keeping the rest from going – knowingly or unknowingly - to hell in a hand basket.

If the Hay’s notes on the Production Code are to be believed, entertainment directly contributes to the rise or fall of morality and, therefore, filmmakers have an obligation to create that which edifies the body. To that end, if film can be used as a barometer of our culture and religious beliefs, then it is not working effectively. Film should play more the role of the instructor than of the peer. This brings up still more questions, particularly in terms of art - “What is the point of art? Why do we create it? Must

every story be told and how?”

– and God “How do you view God? Do you recognize that art has shaped him for you, your feelings towards him as well as your idea of what he looks like and how he acts?

How does that affect how you relate to him?”

Again, questions too big for now but something to get you thinking.

The Smart Bomb Joshua Grant

W

hen the news of Osama Bin Laden's death hit the airwaves, the world was shocked. Finally, after ten years of searching, America's most wanted had been captured and killed. The second most surprising discover was how wrong we were about Bin Laden's whereabouts. He wasn't hiding in a cave. The Al-Queda leader was held up in a multi-million dollar villa, stocked with computers, money, and mountains of porn. The intelligence was so wrong, but how?

The conventional wisdom points to poverty as the main source of terrorism. However,

to believe that means one does not understand the history of terrorism. Terror comes from the Latin verb terrere meaning “to frighten”. The concept of terrorism dates back as early as 105 B.C. in Ancient Rome in response to warriors who fought against Roman Occupation. In the 16th century France, la Terreur (The Terror) was a period during the French Revolution where political enemies were marked and executed in mass by ruling parties. Even in the 19th century there were rumors of collective terrorism. Russian revolutionary Sergey Nechayev founded “People’s Retribution” in 1869; A group whose primary function was acts of political violence.

However, it was only in 1970’s that terrorism gained popular and consistent usage. After the defeat of the Arabs during the Six Day War, the Israelis tried to formalize the violence their enemies, Palestine Liberation Organization, were using against them. They needed to define the politically violent acts committed outside the confines of declared war. In retrospect, one could argue the Israeli‘s objective in using the word terrorism was to delegitimize and criminalize the violence of their enemies (PLO) and justify their own violence. The reality became PLO violence equaled terrorism, and Israeli violence equated to self-defense. Unfortunately, this action only worked if the

Israelis could make “terrorism” a universal principle. If this term could include all enemies of “The West”, this would legitimize their aim.

exist within a forgotten period of history; the revelations of modern society have not yet reached the Middle East.

In 2004, the United Nations Secretary General declared terrorism to be any act “intended to cause death or harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”

Video footage of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda training camps perpetuated the notion of terrorists being ill-educated and impoverished men whose promised life in paradise after his suicide attack was a much preferred option to the one he was currently living. Their feelings of disenfranchisement

Although there were many definitions before the final was decided, The difficulty was defining terrorism while excluding the acts done by western nations, particularly the United States. It was clear that sovereign nations cannot be considered terrorists.

Perhaps this idea of disenfranchisement creating terrorists is not completely false. As images of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan poured through media outlets, the American people were greeted by men who appeared to live in the dark ages. Covered in religious garb with beards hanging inches from their chin, the impression is that these men

hidden caves within the bowels of the Middle East. Some are raised right here in our own backyard, many of them wealthier and more educated than perhaps the average American.

Recent failed terrorists plots have illuminated this troubling reality: -The “Times Square Bomber”, also known as Faisal Shehzad, has an MBA from the University of Bridgeport and is the son of a prominent Pakistani air officer. He worked as an accountant at Elizabeth Arden -“Fort Hood Shooter”, Nidal Hassan is an American trained United States Army doctor

and lack of education provided fuel to the Jihad's fire. Even President Obama proclaimed that “ Extremely poor societies...provide optimal breeding grounds for disease, terrorism, and conflict.”

The truth is some terrorists fit this profile, and possibly economic development would be a way to combat them, but not all. The future wave of terrorism has turned this misconception on its head. The new terrorists are not just lurking in

-Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who has come to be known as the “underwear bomber” holds a degree from University College London, and is the son of a rich Nigerian banker -Swedish bomber Taimur Abdulwahab Al Abdaly holds a degree from a British university and the list goes on.

So the question becomes, why would middle class men, learned in the ways of modern enlightened thought become

religious zealots who are capable of committing acts of terrorism?

According to a Princeton University study by Alan Krueger higher education levels make it more likely for people to become politicized. If these men choose to embrace the rhetoric of Jihad, they must really believe that the West deserves to be vanquished. All of the captured terrorists have spout-

ed off lists of Jihadist's grievances towards the West, most of which concern foreign policy (the presence of Western military forces on Arab lands,the continued support of a Jewish state). It does take a certain degree of intelligence to fully grasp the historical complexities between the Middle East and its occidental antagonizers.

The aim of extremists Islamic groups is a propaganda of victory. Having doctors and engineers who are willing to kill for the Jihad boasts well for recruitment numbers, legitimizes the movement, and proves its power.

A high level of educated believers validates and confirms commitment to the cause and determination to see Allah's will be done.

Krueger's study also concluded terrorism offers greater benefits for those with education to become leaders of particular groups. Well educated individuals will participate disproportionately in terrorists groups if they think they will assume leadership positions if they succeed. In some cases they do, as we saw with Osama bin Laden and Islamic terrorism's new rising star Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Al-Awlaki is an American citizen, born in New Mexico, who has decided to take up the Jihad message. He holds a B.S.- in civil engineering, a M.A.- in education leadership, and a Ph.D. - in human resources development. All from American institutions. According to the C.I.A. Intelligence, it is Al-Awlaki who has been the brainchild behind the recently thwarted plots against the United States. Currently living in Yemen, he is the only American citizen, the military has orders to assassinate.

Believed to recruit potential terrorists through the internet, AlAwlaki is able to reach American terrorists the way no one else can because he speaks their language, and knows how to appeal to the intellect of a rational mind. He also presents a new spin to terror bombing: you don't have to die. You can fulfill your mission without sacrificing your own life.

Whether this is to undermine the sentiments of life ingrained into a western groomed mind, or merely to have men capable of carrying out a number of attacks is unclear. The point is young men are buying into

having a little paradise here on earth.

What is clear is fortunately for the West, smarter terrorists do not equate to better terrorists.

Despite the knowledge that Al-Qaeda and other extremists groups seek to increase their number of educated Jihadists, smarter terrorists don't make better bombs, or are more efficient killers. When it is time to detonate the explosives, by pushing a single button, academic qualifications are hardly relevant.

On

the

Way

to the

Final Frontier

Tylla Bradley

H

ope for the future was the theme of the 1960s. People looked forward hoping that cars would fly, medical problems would be instantly healed, and people could travel anywhere in an instant. Combining the ambitious vision of the future with the adventurous spirit of the past, Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek showed a world that seemed to successfully resolve social, religious, and economic differences with peace and understanding while promoting equality and discouraging war. It spoke of a peaceful and prosperous society. A life without riots, mutually assured destruction, and nuclear

threats. All this, in the near future.

Now, nearly fifty years later, not only do cars not fly, medicine is still time-consuming, and travel is anything but instantaneous. And, as the America of the 1960s gradually began to let go of their vision of the future and adjust to the realities of the day, their hope for the future slowly began to fade.

What happened to the Star Trek future of the 1960s?

Quite simply, America began to lose the hope that propelled the country to the heights of greatness. Whether they were in the right or not, the impossi-

ble became possible when it met the will of the American people. It was a foolhardy move for a mere thirteen colonies to take a stand against their mother nation, one of the strongest countries in the world, based on a collection of complaints and a matter of principle. That they came out ahead is an origin story worthy of an epic. The hope and naivetĂŠ that has driven the childlike nation through a horrific civil war, the Great Depression, and a wide variety of other calamitous events is beginning to mature into the young adult that is just beginning to understand and appreciate the gray realities of life and feel the burden of responsibility. Be-

fore, America could bowl into a conflict guns ablaze and head held high with the reckless confidence of a winning track record and the boundless energy of youth. Now, the energy is waning and the guns are more selective with their targets.

American history is full of men and women who had an idea and tried. Henry Ford thought his idea for a motorized buggy would work so he built it. The Wright brothers took their lives in their hands to disprove years of mockery and take to the skies. Everyday people became heroes, stars, and presidents, they believed what they heard, and they did it. In no other country would men like Abraham Lincoln, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama even be considered worthy of a second look, much less elected to the highest office in the land.

However, after the tragic and frustration losses in Vietnam, Americans were forced to face some of the ugly realities of life and their actions in a new light.

The realization that women and children had been killed during the Vietnam War, protesting college students died, and the Bay of Pigs invasion failed, changed the way American looked at themselves and the future. It’s always a sad day when winners lose, and Vietnam closed an era of innocence and hope in America.

In a post-Vietnam existence, the problems couldn’t be solved by diving in headfirst and the consequences of earlier actions began to weigh on the nation both culturally and economically. The mythology

surrounding the presidency slowly died as America learned that her leaders weren’t immune or immortal as they watched John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy die. The resignation of Richard Nixon, fumbled presidency of the unelected Gerald Ford, and the impeachment of Bill Clinton showed the highest office in the land, the leader of the free people to be weak and fallible.

The failures began to pile up as hostages languished in Iran, the economy began to fall, gas prices went up, and the AIDS epidemic spread. Eventually, distractions and excuses were used up and Americans were forced to face the cold fact that they had reached the future and it wasn’t what they hoped for.

In this world cars don’t fly, tricorders don’t exist, and you can’t be pulled out of a tight situation by a particularly adept teleporter operator. War and genocide are happening and even when things are going well, natural disasters sprang forth, despite the best efforts of earnest environmentalists and scientists.

In times like today, renewing hope is a difficult and uphill battle. As unemployment soars, wars are fought on two continents, and people struggle for their very existence, believing that better days are coming seems like a laughable exercise in futility. And, in times like these, leaders provide the push in the right direction.

As President Barack Obama said as he campaigned for the presidency, “Change will not

come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

By 2005, Gene Roddenberry’s brainchild disappeared from the modern media landscape.

There was no TV show, no movie premiere, people had moved on, leaving Roddenberry’s illustrative and idealistic universe to the faithful few who gathered religiously to discuss Star Trek minutiae and wear their uniforms proudly.

And then, it was back!

In a colossal multi-million dollar affair revamped and amped for a new generation, Star Trek, for the new millennium and the next generation, from the visionary imagination of J.J. Abrams. The time was right. A new generation of Americans at the cusp of change, ready for renewed promises of a peaceful and adventurous future.

But, is it enough? Is a revamping of Star Trek another push up the long, arduous hill toward hope and prosperity?

Who knows? The only certainty today is, as Chancellor Gorkon says in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, “We have a long way to go,” and the President agrees.